From: Caleb Epstein (caleb.epstein_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-06 07:22:16
On 5/6/05, Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Second, for 'sticky' short options, like '-cd' above, the library can break
> them in parts. Again, in example we get:
> ("-c", )
> ("-d", ) *
> The 'c' letter is recognized, and the 'd' letter is not. I find this behaviour
> better than marking the entire '-cd' as unrecognised.
I agree that this is the desirable behavior.
> Finally, the new functionality might not work nice with long options that
> start with a single dash (allow_long_disguise style option):
> will be considered as short option '-f' with value 'oo', and never as long
> option 'foo'.
Would this only be if "f" is a registered option, or even if it is
unregistered? I'd think in the unregistered case you'd end up with -f
and two -o's as in the -cd case above. Whichever the case, I agree
that -foo should not be treated the same way as --foo. But I grew up
using GNU tools, so I'm biased towards the double-dash syntax.
Overall I think this is great. It makes it straightforward to chain
option processing across different modules.
-- Caleb Epstein caleb dot epstein at gmail dot com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk